Preventing School Failure, 56(3), 165171, 2012

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Copyright
ISSN: 1045-988X print / 1940-4387 online
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.633283

School Bullying: Why Quick Fixes Do Not Prevent

School Failure
CINDY M. CASEBEER
The University of TexasPan American, Edinburg, TX, USA

School bullying is a serious problem. It is associated with negative effects for bullies, targets, and bystanders. Bullying is related to
school shootings, student suicides, and poor academic outcomes. Yet, this issue cannot be solved by way of simple, one-size-fits-all
solutions. Instead, school bullying is a complex, systemic issue that requires a deep understanding of the multiple variables with which
it is associated. Furthermore, effective interventions require systematic, whole-school initiatives. In this article, the author identifies
types of school bullying and defines participant roles. In addition, she discusses the complex nature of this issue and briefly examines
its short- and long-term effects. Further, the author presents and discusses various school-based bullying interventions. Last, she
provides recommendations concerning effective interventions to combat school bullying.
Keywords: low-level aggression, school-based violence, school bullying

School bullying is an issue of deep concern across the

United States. This attention is due, in large part, to reports indicating the association between school bullying
and school shootings (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, &
Modzeleski, 2002), and between school bullying and student suicides (Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, &
Gould, 2007). Moreover, school bullying has been shown to
be associated with serious negative effects for bully targets
(Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001), bullies
(Nansel et al., 2001), and bystanders or witnesses (Rivers,
Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009). Bullying is associated with
a negative classroom and/or school climate (Yoneyama
& Rigby, 2006), lower school commitment (Esbensen &
Carson, 2009), and poor academic outcomes (Glew, Fan,
Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005). Moreover, bullying is associated with long-term, negative effects, including poor
psychosocial adjustment (Sourander et al., 2007) and ongoing physical and mental health problems (Rigby, 1999).
It is clear that school bullying is a serious issue that impedes
student success.
There is evidence (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001; Wang,
Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009) that bullying is common among
youth across the United States. Nansel and colleagues
(2001) reported that approximately 30% of their sample
indicated moderate to frequent involvement in bullying

Address correspondence to Cindy M. Casebeer, Department of

Educational Psychology, The University of TexasPan American,
1201 W. University Drive, Edinburg, TX 78539, USA. E-mail:
ccasebeer@utpa.edu

(with 13% who were bullies, approximately 11% who were

bullied, and approximately 6% who were both). Wang
and colleagues (2009) reported that, of their respondents,
approximately 54% indicated they had either verbally
bullied or been the targets of verbal bullying during the 3
months before their study, while approximately 51% had
either socially bullied or been the targets of social bullying,
and approximately 21% had either physically bullied or
been the targets of physical bullying.
It is understandable that concerned members of the
public are demanding efforts to address this pervasive
issue. As state legislatures make school bullying legislation
part of their mandates, many school districts scramble to
address multiple, and often conflicting, requirements while
creating and implementing antibullying programs (Limber
& Small, 2003). These initiatives are laudable because of
the apparent recognition that bullying is a serious issue that
warrants appropriate action. However, there is the danger
that some interventions may provide little more than reactive, superficial, short-term, or one-size-fits-all efforts that
may fail to adequately address the issues, that may lead to
additional problems, or both (Van Acker & Talbott, 1999).
Moreover, there is the risk that ineffective antibullying
programs may displace those that are more effective (Black,
Washington, Trent, Harner, & Pollock, 2010). Thus, parents, educators, and members of the public may be misled
into believing that effective interventions are in place to
combat school bullying when this is not the case. Therefore,
it is essential that educators use evidence-based interventions to effectively address this serious issue (Black et al.,
2010).

166
Definitions and types of school bullying
Dan Olweus is one of the most important seminal researchers to study school bullying. His work began in Sweden and Norway in the late 1960s and early 1970s (e.g.,
Olweus, 2001). Over the years, researchers from many localities including Australia, Europe, and Canada have examined school bullying. In the United States, researchers
have been rather late in studying this issue (Swearer & Espelage, 2004). Nevertheless, there are increasing numbers of
published research studies on school bullying in the United
States.
Even though there are various definitions for school bullying, it is generally agreed that it is a subset of aggression
(Solberg, Olweus, & Endresen, 2007) that involves hostile
behavior by one or more bullies who generally initiate
the bullying with little or no provocation from the target
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003). The goal of bullying varies,
but it is generally used to gain power, prestige, or goods
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003). It involves systematic, ongoing, individual, or group behavior aimed at threatening
or generally oppressing the target (Yoneyama & Rigby,
2006). Furthermore, school bullying involves a systematic
abuse of power or strength that makes it difficult for the
target to mount a successful defense (Olweus, 2001).
Over the years, researchers from a variety of disciplines
have examined bullying using multiple terms, some of
which conflict with others; this has led to some confusion
among researchers and practitioners. However, it is generally agreed that there are three main types of bullying: physical, verbal, and relational (Olweus, 2001). Physical bullying
involves physical violence such as shoving, kicking, hitting,
or pushing (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Verbal bullying involves name-calling or hurtful teasing (Wang et al., 2009).
Physical and verbal bullying are sometimes referred to as
direct aggression (Espelage & Swearer, 2003); relational bullying is sometimes referred to as indirect aggression (Wang
et al., 2009) or social aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005).
Relational bullying involves the manipulation of relationships (Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2001) and functions to damage
the self-esteem of the target, harm the social status of the
target, or exclude the target from a desired group (Archer
& Coyne, 2005). It may include spreading rumors or gossip, social isolation, or betraying confidences (Owens et
al., 2001). Moreover, relational aggression may be overt
or covert, but it is generally covert; children often attempt
to keep this type of behavior hidden from adults (Young,
Boye, & Nelson, 2006). By the time adults become aware
of the situation, it is usually serious (Owens et al., 2001).
Physical and verbal bullying, by their overt nature,
are easy to recognize; thus, it may be easier for school
authorities to address these bullying types (Hazler, Miller,
Carney, & Green, 2001). However, relational aggression
may be manifested in a more covert manner, making it
difficult for teachers or other authority figures to recognize
the behavior (Merrell, Buchanan, & Tran, 2006), the

Casebeer
harm (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005), or the
relational bullies, themselves (Young et al., 2006). Teachers
may not know how to deal effectively with relational
bullying (Mishna et al., 2005), and they may not feel there
is sufficient administrative support for them to effectively
intervene in such bullying situations (Mishna et al., 2005).
Moreover, relational bullying may be masked because of
teacher bias influenced by student reputation (Merrell et
al., 2006). Thus, teachers may be inclined to downplay the
seriousness of relational aggression while failing to provide
appropriate interventions and support to targets. Teachers
may underestimate the prevalence of bullying and fail
to stop bullying when they see it. Last, as with all types
of bullying, teachers and administrators may exacerbate
the situation by siding with bullies and blaming targets
(Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). Therefore, it may be more challenging to design, implement, and evaluate interventions
for relational bullying (Merrell et al., 2006). This illustrates
only one set of reasons why educators should avoid the use
of simplistic, supposedly one-size-fits-all solutions.

Roles
It is important to note that school bullying almost always
takes place in a group situation, with students taking on
one or more roles across time and circumstances: bully,
target, bully assistant, bully reinforcer, target defender,
and outsider/bystander (Salmivalli, 2001). In general,
bystanders are not directly involved as either bullies or
targets (Salmivalli, 2001). Bullies are regarded as antagonists, whereas targets are regarded as their marks. Bully
assistants follow and help bullies, and bully reinforcers
provide reinforcing feedback to bullies. Target defenders
take the side of the target and try to get others to stop the
bullying. Outsiders frequently withdraw and avoid reacting
to the bullying (Salmivalli, 2001).
The term target is preferable to the term victim; the term
target is more accurate in describing roles. Moreover, the
term target may be regarded as more positive in orientation,
with the implication that the role is not necessarily permanent. The term victim should be avoided to prevent creating
or adding a sense of hopelessness and helplessness in the
target, both of which could contribute to a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
Targets have been found to share some characteristics,
including poor social skills (Fox & Boulton, 2005), greater
internalization problems (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLCCURA, 2006), and poor peer relationships (Marini et al.,
2006). Bullies have been found to hold beliefs supportive of
aggression and to enjoy high social standing among their
classmates (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003). Moreover, there is some evidence (e.g., Kaukiainen et al., 1999)
that relational bullies, in particular, may have high social
intelligence.

167

School Bullying
A separate role is that of bullytarget or provocative
victim (Olweus, 2001). Students who are classified in this
subgroup may exhibit characteristics of pure targets and
pure bullies in that they show anxious and aggressive behavior patterns (Olweus, 2001). There is evidence bullytargets
exhibit a range of psychosocial risk factors, including lower
self-esteem (M. OMoore & Kirkham, 2001), greater levels
of aggression (Perren & Alsaker, 2006), a higher level of
normative beliefs legitimizing antisocial behavior (Marini
et al., 2006), increased rates of depression (Kaltiala-Heino,
M. Rimpela, Marttunen, A. Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999),
and greater suicide ideation (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999).
Last, there is evidence (e.g., Glew, Fan, Katon, & Rivara,
2008) bully-targets are more likely to endorse carrying a
weapon to school. It is clear that bully-targets, in particular,
are in need of appropriate interventions (Marini et al.,
2006).
There is some evidence (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001) that
boys act as targets and bullies more frequently than do girls.
Moreover, bullying seems to be more common in Grades
68 (Nansel et al., 2001). Yet, bullying has been found
to occur at all grade levels, including preschool (Monks,
Smith, & Swettenham, 2003), Kindergarten (Perren &
Alsaker, 2006), elementary and high school (M. OMoore
& Kirkham, 2001), and beyond (Chapell et al., 2006). Some
researchers (e.g., Crick & Nelson, 2002; Nansel et al., 2001)
have found that boys report more physical bullying than
do girls, and girls report more relational bullying than do
boys. However, Kuppens and colleagues (2008) found no
distinct gender differences in terms of relational aggression.
Moreover, experts (e.g., Merrell et al., 2006; Underwood,
Galen, & Paquette, 2001) have cautioned against regarding
relational bullying as simply a female issue; boys, too, have
been found to engage in relational aggression (Merrell
et al., 2006). Archer and Coyne (2005) argued that girls
are not necessarily more relationally aggressive than are
boys; however, girls tend to use relational aggression
more often than do boys; the opposite is true for physical
aggression.
Nevertheless, there remain questions concerning prevalence estimates of bullying (Esbensen & Carson, 2009).
Over the years, researchers have applied a wide variety of
definitions (Underwood et al., 2001) and have used a range
of measurement tools (Cole, Cornell, & Sheras, 2006)
to examine this issue; these have often led to misunderstandings and questions concerning prevalence estimates
(Esbensen & Carson, 2009). In terms of measurement,
some experts (e.g., Cole et al., 2006; Pellegrini, 2001) have
cautioned against the overuse of self-reporting instruments
to identify bullying. Cole and colleagues (2006) found
evidence that the use of self-reporting instruments may lead
to an underestimation of bullying, while peer reporting
may yield more accurate findings. Therefore, researchers
may wish to use peer reports when attempting to identify
bullies.

Bullying Interventions
School bullying is a complex issue that calls for more
than one-size-fits-all, knee-jerk reactions. Instead, it is a
multifaceted, systemic problem that demands long-term,
comprehensive, and coordinated schoolwide interventions
(Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sager, & Short-Camilli, 1997). Experts (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003)
have argued that bullying can best be understood through
an ecological framework. Bullying involves multiple participants at multiple levels (Mishna et al., 2005). Moreover,
aggressive behaviors are propagated and valued chiefly
by way of groups; however, group dynamics may vary
considerably across schools and classrooms (Rodkin &
Hodges, 2003). If teachers and other authority figures are to
intervene effectively, they must first understand the peer
ecologies in which their students interact, including their
multiple layers of instigators, facilitators, targets, bullies,
and bystanders. Otherwise, they risk inviting resistance and
defiance that may serve to worsen the situation (Rodkin &
Hodges, 2003).
Nevertheless, aggression is considered a learned behavior; as such, students can learn to replace it with prosocial
behavior that benefits all members of the community (Van
Acker & Talbott, 1999). Van Acker and Talbott (1999)
argued that effective interventions against student aggression include the following: (a) the promotion of positive
behavioral supports; (b) the improvement of support systems, with the school taking a central role; (c) the use of
instructional strategies that promote social and academic
development; (d) increased teacher education; (e) increased
teacher support; (f) the development of nonaversive interventions that promote prosocial problem-solving strategies; (g) the development and use of effective screening
methods to identify students who are at risk so that early
and continuous interventions can be used effectively; and
(h) improved communication among home, school, and
community to increase accountability. These are comparable to the components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program, a well-known and well-researched program that
is characterized by the following: (a) the warm, caring involvement of adults toward students; (b) clearly delineated
behavioral expectations; and (c) the application of nonhostile, nonphysical consequences upon violation of the
behavioral expectations (Limber, 2004).
Practitioners and researchers would undoubtedly prefer
detailed, completely separate lists and descriptions of
interventions that work and those that do not work.
However, research on school bullying interventions is
still in its infancy, with few programs associated with
documented positive results. Some potentially useful
programs have never been subjected to systematic research
evaluation (e.g., Olweus, 2004).
The most promising individual intervention is that of
the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a comprehensive,

168
whole-school program originally developed by Dan Olweus
to address bullying in Norwegian schools (Olweus, 1994).
The aim of the program is to reduce school bullying across
the entire school community. In his study on the effects of
the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in Bergen, Norway, Olweus (1994) found evidence that this program is
associated with several positive outcomes, including significant reductions in bullying. In their evaluation of the
program in Ireland, A. M. OMoore and Minton (2005)
also found evidence of significant reductions in bullying.
However, other researchers who have examined the program have found modest (Black et al., 2010) to mixed effects (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007), leading to questions
concerning whether this intervention can be successfully
implemented across a broad range of settings. Therefore,
it is essential for researchers to examine the effects of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and other bullying
intervention programs across a range of settings and populations to determine whether and how they work.
Even so, only recently has there been a critical mass of
sufficient studies to complete a meaningful meta-analysis
or other synthesis of research findings (Merrell, Gueldner,
Ross, & Isava, 2008). The lack of a large number of research
studies on this issue may be attributed to the fact that, at
least in the United States, researchers face considerable
institutional and societal barriers when they attempt to
conduct studies on school bullying (Swearer & Espelage,
2004).
In addition, many interventions are associated with
mixed effects. Interventions are associated with one of three
outcomes: decreases in bullying, no effects, or increases in
bullying (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). There are several possible reasons for these results, which may be associated with,
among other variables: level of faculty, staff, and student
involvement; student age/development; school structure;
intervention type; intervention aims; outcome measures;
treatment fidelity; and measurement instruments. Moreover, rigor in study design and implementation influence
the findings themselves and the external validity of those
findings (J. D. Smith, Schneider, P. K. Smith, & Ananiadou,
2004). Last, there are significant differences between intervention theories and techniques; Merrell and colleagues
(2008) argued that it is incorrect to view school bullying
interventions as a common entity. All of these issues point
to the need for continuing research on this topic.
Nevertheless, a few researchers (e.g., Merrell et al., 2008;
J. D. Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007) have
completed reviews of various research studies on school
bullying interventions. These researchers have examined a
broad range of studies that involve an extensive assortment
of interventions. It is not surprising, however, that these
researchers have found mixed effects for various interventions.
In their 2004 synthesis of evaluation research on 14
specifically whole-school research studies across several
countries, Smith and colleagues indicated that the majority

Casebeer
of researchers found no significant program effects on measures of self-reported victimization and bullying. However,
the researchers found evidence of positive outcomes associated with a small number of programs. They argued
that programs in which implementation was systematically
monitored were more often associated with greater efficacy
than were programs without any monitoring. Last, Smith
and colleagues stated that the whole-school approach has
led to important reductions in bullying in a number of
cases, but the results of their synthesis are too inconsistent
to warrant the adoption of these programs to the exclusion
of others.
Similarly, in their meta-analysis of 16 bullying intervention studies across several countries and involving various
programs (whole-school, individual classroom, and across
schools), Merrell and colleagues (2008) found evidence of
a wide dispersion of effects across measurement methods,
classification variables, and school bullying interventions.
Nevertheless, they found evidence that various interventions, such as those aimed at improving peer support and
the school environment, are associated with reduced bullying. However, these researchers found a lack of meaningful effects, or even increased bullying, associated with
the use of simplistic programs, such as those involving only
an antibullying policy paired with peer support, and those
involving a single classroom, rather than a whole-school,
focus.
Last, in their review of 26 intervention studies across
various countries and involving multiple interventions
(curriculum-based, whole-school, social skills, mentoring,
and social worker support), Vreeman and Carroll (2007)
found evidence that many school-based interventions are
associated with direct reductions in bullying. Specifically,
they found evidence that whole-school interventions (especially with older students) were more often associated
with reductions in bullying than were either curriculumbased antibullying interventions or social skills training
programs. They also found evidence that the one mentoring study and the one social worker support study were
associated with decreased bullying. Nevertheless, Vreeman
and Carroll (2007) found that social skills training interventions were largely associated with no clear reductions in
bullying. Last, they found that only a few curriculum-based
antibullying interventions were effective; however, this varied by population. The researchers argued that, because
bullying involves a systemic group process across the entire
school environment, it might be necessary to implement interventions designed to alter the attitudes and behaviors of
members of the entire school community, rather than only
a subset, such as a classroom.

Tools for Educators

Yet, what can educators use to combat bullying in their
schools and classrooms? Educators must avoid relying on

169

School Bullying
simple, quick-fix, or one-size-fits-all interventions, regardless of how well-meaning their perceived intentions. Such
interventions may not only be ineffective, but they may be
associated with serious, unintended side effects. Specifically,
zero-tolerance (or exclusion) policies may fail to address
underlying issues (Martnez, 2009), or they may even undermine intervention efforts by discouraging the reporting
of bullying behaviors and excluding students from valuable
learning opportunities (Limber, 2004). Similarly, mediation
or conflict-resolution techniques may undermine effective
bullying interventions. Further, these interventions may exacerbate the bullying situation (Limber, 2004) in that they
fail to take into consideration the fact that bullying is not
the result of simple conflict; rather, it involves the exploitation of a serious imbalance of physical or social power
(Limber, 2004). Last, the use of group treatments may be
counterproductive in that group members may serve as role
models of, and reinforcers for, bullying behaviors (Limber,
2004).
In contrast, educators should use some general tools in
their efforts to combat school bullying. Specifically, in their
examination of the effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in the Southeastern United States, Limber
and colleagues (2004) discussed numerous components of
the program that can help to reduce school bullying. These
include the increased supervision of student behavior, the
reinforcement of prosocial behaviors, and the encouragement of parent involvement. Moreover, educators should
encourage students to (a) try to help others who are being
bullied and (b) make a point of including students who
are easily left out of group activities. Individual classroom
interventions may include regular classroom meetings to
educate students concerning (a) the identification of bullying behaviors, (b) the seriousness of bullying, and (c) the
techniques by which they can help to discourage or stop
bullying. Last, Limber and colleagues (2004) asserted that
individual educators need to assume intervention responsibility for every bullying instance.

appropriate steps to determine the nature of the problem

or problems. Then, they must work to find and use those
interventions that are effective and that are not associated
with unintended negative effects (Merrell et al., 2008).

Conclusions
School bullying is a complex, serious issue that can
negatively influence the school environment (Esbensen &
Carson, 2009) and student learning outcomes (Glew et al.,
2005). It involves various roles and networks that can and
often do change over time and across contexts (Barboza
et al., 2009). In addition, there is tremendous variability
between schools and the students and communities they
serve. The most effective interventions for particular
schools and students may be those that are tailor-made to
meet their specific needs and situations.
To effectively combat school bullying, interventions must
be aimed at addressing root causes. Simplistic, knee-jerk, or
one-size-fits-all interventions should be avoided. Effective
interventions require a long-term commitment on the part
of the entire school community to expend the resources necessary to address this pernicious issue. Moreover, because
of the number of variables inherent in school bullying, researchers and practitioners need to work together to determine which interventions are most effective for particular
situations, and under what circumstances. Our students and
our society deserve no less than a safe environment in which
all members can flourish and achieve their full potential;
in short, all members of the school community deserve a
positive environment that facilitates school success.

Author note
Cindy M. Casebeer is an assistant professor at the University of
TexasPan American. Her current research interests include school bullying, school socioemotional climate, teacher education, and classroom
assessment.

Cautionary Notes for Practitioners

It is understandable that practitioners wish to intervene as
soon as possible when they identify a bullying situation.
All practitioners should be ready to intervene each and
every time they encounter aggressive student behavior, if
only to stabilize the situation and to prevent further harm.
Nevertheless, there is the possibility that even the most wellintentioned interventions may be associated with negative
consequences.
Therefore, it is essential that practitioners remain careful and mindfully consider the immediate and long-term
effects of their intervention efforts (Merrell et al., 2008).
If it is determined that specific interventions are either not
producing the intended positive results, or are associated
with unintended negative effects, practitioners must take

References
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect,
relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 212230. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0903 2
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J.,
Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and
the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101121. doi:
10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1
Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of
the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools:
A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266274. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005
Black, S., Washington, E., Trent, V., Harner, P., & Pollock, E.
(2010). Translating the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program into

170
real-world practice. Health Promotion Practice, 11, 733740. doi:
10.1177/1524839908321562
Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001).
Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study
of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480484. doi:
10.1136/bmj.323.7311.480
Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. N., MacIver,
K. W., & Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high
school, and college. Adolescence, 41(164), 633648.
Cole, J. C. M., Cornell, D. G., & Sheras, P. (2006). Identification of
school bullies by survey methods. Professional School Counseling, 9,
305313.
Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me thered be friends
like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599607. doi:
10.1023/a:1020811714064
Esbensen, F.-A., & Carson, D. C. (2009). Consequences of being bullied:
Results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization
in a multisite sample of American students. Youth & Society, 41,
209233. doi: 10.1177/004411809351067
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying
and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from
here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365383.
Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims
of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 313328. doi: 10.1348/000709905X25517
Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W. W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli,
C. (1997). Bully proofing your school: Creating a positive
climate. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 235243. doi:
10.1177/105345129703200407
Glew, G. M., Fan, M.-Y., Katon, W., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Bullying
and school safety. Journal of Pediatrics, 152(1), 123128.e1. doi:
10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.045
Glew, G. M., Fan, M.-Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005).
Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in
elementary school. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine,
159, 10261031. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult
recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research, 43,
133146. doi: 10.1080/00131880110051137
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young
adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112,
12311237.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish
adolescents: School survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348351.

Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist,

K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman,
K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S., & Ahlbom, A. (1999). The relationships
between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(2), 8189. doi: 10.1002/(sici)10982337(1999)25:2<81::aid-ab1>3.0.co;2-m
Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould,
M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
46(1), 4049. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18
Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian,
S. V. (2008). Individual and classroom variables associated with
relational aggression in elementary-school aged children: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 639660. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.005
Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program in American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D.
L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools:
A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp.
351363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V. (2004).
Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme in

Casebeer
the Southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K.
Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions
be? (pp. 5579). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address
bullying in schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 445455.
Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct
and indirect bullyvictims: Differential psychosocial risk factors
associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization.
Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551569. doi: 10.1002/ab.20155
Martnez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really affecting schools? Preventing School Failure, 53, 153157.
doi: 10.3200/PSFL.53.3.153-158
Merrell, K. W., Buchanan, R., & Tran, O. K. (2006). Relational aggression in children and adolescents: A review with implications
for school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 345360. doi:
10.1002/pits.20145
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How
effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis
of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 2642.
doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26
Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers understanding of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 718738.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims,
and defenders in preschool: Peer, self-, and teacher reports. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 49, 453469. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0024
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton,
B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth:
Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 20942100. doi:
10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school
based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 35, 11711190. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in
school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 320). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design
and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway.
In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How
successful can interventions be? (pp. 1336). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
OMoore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an anti-bullying programme in primary schools. Aggressive
Behavior, 31, 609622. doi: 10.1002/ab.20098
OMoore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269283. doi:
10.1002/ab.1010
Owens, L., Slee, P., & Shute, R. (2001). Victimization among teenage
girls: What can be done about indirect harassment? In J. Juvonen
& S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized (pp. 215241). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Sampling instances of victimization in middle
school: A methodological comparison. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham
(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimized (pp. 125144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships
of victims, bullyvictims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 4557. doi: 10.1111/j.14697610.2005.01445.x
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary
school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1),
95104. doi: 10.1348/000709999157590
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing
bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status.
School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211223. doi: 10.1037/a0018164

School Bullying
Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists
and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384
400.
Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical findings
and their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer
harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp.
398419). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004).
The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547
560.
Solberg, M. E., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (2007). Bullies and victims
at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 441464. doi: 10.1348/000709906X105689

Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Ronning,

J. A., Niemela, S., Helenius, H.,
Sillanmaki, L., . . . Almqvist, F. (2007). What is the early adulthood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The
Finnish From a Boy to a Man study. Pediatrics, 120, 397404.
doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2704
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A socialecological framework of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage
& S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A socialecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 112).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

171
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten
challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children:
Why cant we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248266.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00162
Van Acker, R., & Talbott, E. (1999). The school context and risk
for aggression: Implications for school-based prevention and
intervention efforts. Preventing School Failure, 44, 1220. doi:
10.1080/10459880009602738
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W.
(2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative:
Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Secret
Service.
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of schoolbased interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 7888. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying
among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368375. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Yoneyama, S., & Rigby, K. (2006). Bully/victim students & classroom
climate. Youth Studies Australia, 25(3), 3441.
Young, E. L., Boye, A. E., & Nelson, D. A. (2006). Relational aggression:
Understanding, identifying, and responding in schools. Psychology
in the Schools, 43, 297312. doi: 10.1002/pits.20148

Copyright of Preventing School Failure is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.